Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:PRF0304.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:PRF0304.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2019 at 13:07:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by PauloRicFerr - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 13:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 13:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Question If the first version of this view was opposed, why do you think a just as noisy, over-saturated version with distracting foreground and a bad file title will do any better? --Cart (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- This is much better than the other version. This is the tropic, so the colors look real. @ArionEstar: Could you please rename the file, and provide an English description? Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- So the colors in the previous File:Vista do Mirante do Forte dos Remédios da praia de Fernando de Noronha.jpg that look much more natural, are completely wrong? --Cart (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- In the other one, the colors are washed out IMO. But there are other technical flaws here, as mentioned below. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yann, Cart, there is EXIF data showing Lightroom edits on this one. Vibrance +16, Saturation Adjustment Yellow + 46, Green +15, Aqua +44, Blue +19, Highlights -100, Shadows +30, Whites +50, Blacks +20, Clarity +8. Those are extensive saturation and levels adjustments. Not natural, by a long way. The other photo was processed in Capture NX and am not sure what adjustments were made. It's exposure is brighter, which may contribute to the "washed out" appearance. Cart's assessment that it is "over-saturated" is correct. And I agree with Cmao20 that it is blurred and likely not focussed properly. Arion, you've been here long enough to know the standards. Looks like you nominated this from a thumbnail and didn't bother to examine it. You should know the filename is not acceptable. You are wasting reviewer's time with this carelessness. -- Colin (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, this is actually IMO worse than the other one. It's higher resolution, and the light is better, but the water and the land features are completely unsharp. It looks like the focus has been missed - the only part of the shot that is actually sharp is the tiny bit of vegetation sticking up on the bottom right of the frame, suggesting the camera has focussed too close rather than on the land in the distance. I otherwise like the picture, but that's a pretty major technical flaw, and to me it means it's not QI let alone FP. Cmao20 (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)- Oppose per Cmao20. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
